Is it cricket or is it not?
I remember reading in a Trinity College souvenir put out for the
Bradby some decades ago an interesting comparison of cricket and rugby
football: ‘Cricket is a gentlemen’s game played by rowdies; rugger is a
rowdy’s game played by gentlemen.’ Over the years I’ve come to realize
that this is rubbish; all sports have the same proportion of decent
players and ‘rowdies’. Two things though have given cricket that
‘decent’ aura.
First, it’s a clean game. White flannels with a little bit of red
taken off the ball and the occasional green-brown that a desperate dive
to save a boundary might deposit on the pants seem saintly-clean when
viewed against the sweat-soaked, mud-caked rugger jersey. Rugger is an
all-weather sport. Cricket is wimpy; the players sprint into the
pavilion at the first sign of a shower as though terrified they might
catch a cold.
Game’s spirit
The second reason is the adage ‘that’s just not cricket’. The full
version is ‘I say, old chap, that’s just not cricket’ and it is used as
an exclamation to indicate displeasure or disapproval about something
which is considered unfair, unbalanced or even wrong. It does not
necessarily indicate that the course of action commented on is illegal,
but that somehow certain accepted values or norms have been violated.
It indicates rupture of what might be called ‘spirit of the game’.
The assumption has been that cricket is played by those who are
committed to upholding the game’s spirit, not just playing within the
rules but in thought, word and deed considering the game to be more
important than result.
The phrase has been used outside cricketing contexts quite
frequently, especially and paradoxically by those who hardly ‘play
cricket’ in the matter of just and fair conduct. The British, after all,
are experts at retiring laws, norms, values and morals when it comes to
furthering self-interest including theft, outright plunder, securing
access to resources and markets, although quite ready to throw the
it’s-not-cricket at their opponents, whether such dismissals are
justified or not.
World Cup
We know that ‘cricket’ is the exception, the rule being
‘non-cricket’. Interestingly, we have come to a point where there’s
little ‘cricket’ (in terms of the phrase) in cricket.
A friend of mine, a Sri Lankan domiciled in the USA, who is here
right now to watch the World Cup made some observations recently.
Dr Lal De Silva said that there’s little appreciation of how far
we’ve come as a nation. He recalled going to see a visiting Windies team
way back in the sixties. The ticket was Rs five and carried a note of
caution to the effect that the authorities would not take responsibility
if the hastily constructed tiered seating contraption collapsed.
Lal Aiya, how I’ve known for more than 20 years now, also opined that
winning the World Cup in 1996 would have given a great boost in
inculcating we-can-do attitude among our people.
He talked about cricket and not-cricket too. He had watched Sanga and
his men come short against Pakistan. He did not mind the loss and he
told me why.
‘I watched Sri Lanka play Australia in 2004. We had lost the first
ODI and the Aussies were well on their way to reaching a modest Sri
Lankan total of 245. With ten overs left, Australia needed 50 odd runs
more with six wickets in hand. Gilchrist was batting with Symonds when
Kumar Dharmasena won an lbw decision against the latter.
Match fixing
The umpire had second thoughts, consulted his colleague and decided
that Symonds had got a touch with the bat before the ball hit his pad.
Marvan Atapattu the Sri Lanka skipper was consulted and the batsman was
called back. Sri Lanka won the match by a single run thanks to a
wonderful last over of six yorker length deliveries by Chaminda Vaas.
This is what makes me come for these matches.’ He admitted that while
you do need money to keep developing the game it seems that
commercialism has taken something out of it. The match fixing and spot
fixing scandals and the huge salaries and income from endorsements that
players enjoy have compromised the image of 22 men in white flannels
playing the game according to the book, ie of culture, decency and
civilization.
A few months ago I warned that there could be sinister moves to
demoralize Sanga and his team with match fixing charges. It happened and
one wonders if such charges/insinuations themselves have price-tags
attached to them.
Question marks
It has come to a point when even a good game of cricket leaves a few
question marks hanging. Not many would have bet on England tying with
India or Ireland beating India.
Those who bet against the run of play would have scored some big
hits. I like to think that there’s cricket in cricket, although the
evidence suggests otherwise, whether or not there’s any truth in
match-fixing allegations.
People talk of the glorious uncertainties of cricket. Well, this is
possible only if there are no scripts to what happens on the field. I am
not sure any more if all cricketers play cricket, even though they don
pads, gloves and helmets and so on and know how to polish the red cherry
on their shirt fronts.
Bucks have got in the way. Sledging is mainstream. Gamesmanship
overrides sportsmanship.
I watch for script-flips, when that which even the most competent
scriptwriters employed by the bookies cannot predict. Like that 50 ball
100 by Ireland’s O’Brien. Or what Marvan did on February 22, 2004 at the
Rangiri Dambulla Stadium. They’ve both given some oxygen to ‘that’s not
cricket’. I am not sure if it’s enough though.
[email protected]
|